This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Sorry but the law didn't outlaw waterboarding until the Supreme Court ruledin 2006. The three al Qaeda operatvies were waterboarded well before that when the President got the advice that it was legal. The law says move on and Bush cannot be retroactivly prosecuted, keep foaming at the mouth.

The Geneva Convention expressly addresses that all bets are off if the enemy is shielding, as an example, it's munitions storage facility in the midst of a civilian population. Or its troops in close proximity to a hospital. We do a better job that any nation on earth in our attempts to protect civilian populations. All the while, our enemies are killing civilians like freakin' flies.

I don't think the issue of the legality of targeting killings (assassinations) using drones is that cut and dry, beginning with the fact that we're not at war with Yemen and killing significant numbers of non-combatants involves issues of International Humanitarian Law:

The United Nations Basic Principles for the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (UN Basic Principles) set out the international legal standard for the use of force by police:

Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in
self-defense or defense of others against the imminent threat of death or
serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime
involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger
and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when
less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any
event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly
unavoidable in order to protect life.4

The United States has failed to follow these rules by using combat drones in places where no actual armed conflict was occurring or where the U.S. was not involved in the armed conflict.

The Legal Adviser to the Department of State recently outlined the Government’s legal justifications for targeted killings. They were said to be based on its asserted right to self-defence, as well as on IHL, on the basis that the US is “in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, as well as the Taliban and associated forces.”41 While this statement is an important starting point, it does not address some of the most central legal issues including: the scope of the armed conflict in which the US asserts it is engaged, the criteria for individuals who may be targeted and killed, the existence of any substantive or procedural safeguards to ensure the legality and accuracy of killings, and the existence of accountability mechanisms.

We see indignation to the point of wanting Bush tried as a war criminal for waterboarding three terrorists (or "suspected" terrorists), but Obama purportedly kills dozens of women and children in a single drone strike in a country we're not at war with and we hear nary a peep. Why is that? About all we get from non-academics is a word from someone like this member of Obama's Gitmo fan club:

“We say that Bush was the president of torture, but Obama is the president of extra-judicial killing. The difference between the two is that while one used to extra-judicially detain people, the other has gone a step further and extra-judicially kills them.”

Sorry but the law didn't outlaw waterboarding until the Supreme Court ruledin 2006. The three al Qaeda operatvies were waterboarded well before that when the President got the advice that it was legal. The law says move on and Bush cannot be retroactivly prosecuted, keep foaming at the mouth.

The spurpreme court didn't make law. They ruled on law, meaning it was illegal before they ruled.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

The spurpreme court didn't make law. They ruled on law, meaning it was illegal before they ruled.

The truth of the matter remains, Bush was told by attorneys that Waterboarding wasn't illegal and Bush acted on that advice. He will not be prosecuted by anyone for his actions regardless of the vitriol from the left and Amnesia International. Bush briefed Congress on what he was doing and there was no outrage there either. I am still waiting for you to tell us all what you would like to see happen to Bush for Waterboarding 3 al Qaeda leaders? You keep running as usual.

The truth of the matter remains, Bush was told by attorneys that Waterboarding wasn't illegal and Bush acted on that advice. He will not be prosecuted by anyone for his actions regardless of the vitriol from the left and Amnesia International. Bush briefed Congress on what he was doing and there was no outrage there either. I am still waiting for you to tell us all what you would like to see happen to Bush for Waterboarding 3 al Qaeda leaders? You keep running as usual.

He was given the answer he wanted. It was not likely an honest effort. You say give me cover, and they seek to do so. The fact is, as the court ruled, it was already law.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Prior to three known instances of waterboarding, a Justice Department lawyer signed a secret legal opinion claiming terror detainees were not protected by the Geneva Convention's ban on torture.

3 AQ operatives were waterboarded in 2002-03, with the direct approval of President Bush.

In 2004, that secret legal opinion was rescinded. Subsequent to that rescind, the DOJ signed other legal opinions declaring that extreme interrogation methods could be authorized by the President.

In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that Gitmo detainees were subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention.

In 2006, the CIA banned waterboarding from its bag of tricks.

In 2008, the House Judiciary Committee asked the AG if he was going to prosecute interrogators who waterboarded. He replied that the Justice Department could not investigate or prosecute people for actions that it had authorized earlier. All above paraphrased from here: Cheney Defends U.S. Use Of Waterboarding - CBS News

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.